Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 14:25:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 12:42:31 GMT
Jesus people, the bidding was closed on Knight. This decision was made a long time ago. It's just being announced now. The fact remains, 5 days into free agency, he had one offer, from his bird rights team. That's an easy decision, one of the easiest I've ever made. If you haven't offered on a player after 5 days, then they're obviously not a priority to you. I'm surprised so many people care about Knight now given that nobody but Brian cared about him when free agency opened. There are two issues I have with this signing, and I'm usually pretty cool with the free agency process and a bit less bitchy about it than I am usually. 1: You know, I know, and everyone else that has ever done sim league free agency with player agents KNOWS that no one is offering the shitty people until the better people are gone. You don't close bidding on Brandon Knight while Kyrie Irving and Durant aren't signed yet. That's madness. Any respectable player agent knows that BK will get shitloads of offers as soon as he is the best free agent left on the market. 2: The announcement time being so far past the "stopped accepted bids" time. There's literally no reason to do this. Ian doesn't put the contracts of bird rights players onto the roster until the regular season. There is no reason to make bird rights players "wait" to sign. Except to gain more leverage by waiting for another offer. Bad job by the player agent here. Brandon Knight got fucked because his agent turned off his cell phone after 5 days for no goddamn reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 28, 2016 12:47:56 GMT
Bottom line, different player agents handle things differently, and that's ok.
Personally I would have waited as the PG class was stacked this year. If 7 people want Kyrie and only 1 can get him, that's 6 more looking for some other PG.
This also doesn't mean Knight still wouldn't sign with the Pelicans, but perhaps he could have made more money with more bidders.
I could have signed Alec Burks to a 3 year deal with the Blazers worth under 4 million total for about 2 weeks, almost 3. But I told Brandon right away he wanted to see if there would be more money later in FA. Lo and behold, 61 million dollars awaited!
I also think it real bidding would have happened you would have seen Brian fave a very tough decision. He wants to sign Drummond next year without bird rights. If bidding got up to a max on Knight he probably let's him walk and does something like play Burks or Hayward at PG. Or, he doesn't bid on guys like Roberson or Burks.
It ended up being a HUGE decision with a huge impact to close bidding early. I understand why it happened, just saying I would have done it differently.
I also think, on some level, as Brandon Knight's agent you have to be his biggest fan. Even if you aren't actually. You're trying to get him as much money as possible in this market.
Again, my opinion, and bottom line, different people do things differently. Just want to put some of those thoughts out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 28, 2016 12:49:35 GMT
Jesus people, the bidding was closed on Knight. This decision was made a long time ago. It's just being announced now. The fact remains, 5 days into free agency, he had one offer, from his bird rights team. That's an easy decision, one of the easiest I've ever made. If you haven't offered on a player after 5 days, then they're obviously not a priority to you. I'm surprised so many people care about Knight now given that nobody but Brian cared about him when free agency opened. There are two issues I have with this signing, and I'm usually pretty cool with the free agency process and a bit less bitchy about it than I am usually. 1: You know, I know, and everyone else that has ever done sim league free agency with player agents KNOWS that no one is offering the shitty people until the better people are gone. You don't close bidding on Brandon Knight while Kyrie Irving and Durant aren't signed yet. That's madness. Any respectable player agent knows that BK will get shitloads of offers as soon as he is the best free agent left on the market. 2: The announcement time being so far past the "stopped accepted bids" time. There's literally no reason to do this. Ian doesn't put the contracts of bird rights players onto the roster until the regular season. There is no reason to make bird rights players "wait" to sign. Except to gain more leverage by waiting for another offer. Bad job by the player agent here. Brandon Knight got fucked because his agent turned off his cell phone after 5 days for no goddamn reason. Kind of agree, only thing is the rule on being able to announce BR FA's and not have them count on the cap only happened this year during FA. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 14:25:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 12:51:41 GMT
Kind of agree, only thing is the rule on being able to announce BR FA's and not have them count on the cap only happened this year during FA. Actually that rule came into being about 3 days after I joined. It just wasn't noticed until I brought it up a couple weeks ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 28, 2016 12:59:47 GMT
Kind of agree, only thing is the rule on being able to announce BR FA's and not have them count on the cap only happened this year during FA. Actually that rule came into being about 3 days after I joined. It just wasn't noticed until I brought it up a couple weeks ago. I should re-clarify. Ian made it a point during FA that we should now announce these signings earlier. We've always waited until the end of FA so managers can use their cap and then go over the cap to sign these BR players. Now we can announce them much earlier. You're right overall, I am just clarifying the point I was referring to specifically. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on Jul 28, 2016 13:30:21 GMT
I think the biggest issue here is how much of an impact this contract has on future years. I mean it is absolutely HUGE. Here's some facts.
- Knight signed to a 5 year, $93 mil contract
- A full max for Knight would be 6 years, $185 mil
Just looking at numbers alone, Knight took a 50% paycut after only 5 days on the market. He left over $90 million on the table. Insane right?
As Walt pointed out, Scalabrine is in a bit of a pickle next season to re-sign Drummond, who will obviously command the max (unless bidding is closed early). Most sources are projecting the cap to be between $102-108 mil... lets just round it to $105 mil. At a 25% max, Scalabrine needs $26.25 mil to have a chance at getting Drummond back.
His currently salary situation for next season, including this Knight contract, puts him at roughly $108 mil, meaning he needs to clear about $29 mil in order to get to where he needs to be to re-sign Drummond.
Before we go any further, lets keep in mind that Knight is taking over a $10 mil pay cut in year 2 in his signed contract versus a max contract. That means that instead of clearing $29 mil, Scalabrine would have to clear over $39 mil.
So, how is he going to clear this cap? Under a full max (needs $39 mil), he would decline Aminu's team option (still needs $28 mil). We can be reasonably certain he isn't trading Hayward or Wiggins, and Ezeli is on too much a team-friendly deal to decline. Even if Scalabrine can find a way to move Motiejunas, he still needs $20 mil in cap space. In fact, the only remaining thing he can really do is move Alec Burks and Andre Roberson, the two free agents he just signed and promised the world to. Crazy right?
With Knight's current contract, Scalabrine only needs $29 mil in cap space. Guess who is going to be screwed again? Yep, you got it, Alec Burks and Andre Roberson. Sure, he could decline Aminu's team option, but why would he do that when Aminu is cheaper and better than Burks and Roberson? I guess its not THAT huge, but basically what this discount contract has done is allow Scalabrine to keep Aminu when really he should be needing to clear his cap space.
The funny thing from this entire situation is, IMO, that Scalabrine almost certainly has to move both Burks and Roberson this year if he wants any chance at re-signing Drummond. I guarantee that he will start looking to trade them both as soon as December 7th rolls around, and I'm going to reference this post once the trades are posted. Basically, Scalabrine has found a way to fuck over every single player who signed with him this offseason.
|
|
Kevin Hollis
Former Thunder GM for 7 years
All Star
Posts: 2,838 
|
Post by Kevin Hollis on Jul 28, 2016 14:07:28 GMT
I think the biggest issue here is how much of an impact this contract has on future years. I mean it is absolutely HUGE. Here's some facts. - Knight signed to a 5 year, $93 mil contract - A full max for Knight would be 6 years, $185 mil Just looking at numbers alone, Knight took a 50% paycut after only 5 days on the market. He left over $90 million on the table. Insane right? As Walt pointed out, Scalabrine is in a bit of a pickle next season to re-sign Drummond, who will obviously command the max (unless bidding is closed early). Most sources are projecting the cap to be between $102-108 mil... lets just round it to $105 mil. At a 25% max, Scalabrine needs $26.25 mil to have a chance at getting Drummond back. His currently salary situation for next season, including this Knight contract, puts him at roughly $108 mil, meaning he needs to clear about $29 mil in order to get to where he needs to be to re-sign Drummond. Before we go any further, lets keep in mind that Knight is taking over a $10 mil pay cut in year 2 in his signed contract versus a max contract. That means that instead of clearing $29 mil, Scalabrine would have to clear over $39 mil.So, how is he going to clear this cap? Under a full max (needs $39 mil), he would decline Aminu's team option (still needs $28 mil). We can be reasonably certain he isn't trading Hayward or Wiggins, and Ezeli is on too much a team-friendly deal to decline. Even if Scalabrine can find a way to move Motiejunas, he still needs $20 mil in cap space. In fact, the only remaining thing he can really do is move Alec Burks and Andre Roberson, the two free agents he just signed and promised the world to. Crazy right? With Knight's current contract, Scalabrine only needs $29 mil in cap space. Guess who is going to be screwed again? Yep, you got it, Alec Burks and Andre Roberson. Sure, he could decline Aminu's team option, but why would he do that when Aminu is cheaper and better than Burks and Roberson? I guess its not THAT huge, but basically what this discount contract has done is allow Scalabrine to keep Aminu when really he should be needing to clear his cap space. The funny thing from this entire situation is, IMO, that Scalabrine almost certainly has to move both Burks and Roberson this year if he wants any chance at re-signing Drummond. I guarantee that he will start looking to trade them both as soon as December 7th rolls around, and I'm going to reference this post once the trades are posted. Basically, Scalabrine has found a way to fuck over every single player who signed with him this offseason. One of the best analysis I have heard since joining D5. |
|
|
|
Post by Shaquille O'Neal on Jul 28, 2016 18:05:56 GMT
we need to update the OSFA rules on this. We should not close the bidding of the free agents until the top 5 on every position has signed on a team or unless he got more than 10 offers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 28, 2016 18:46:59 GMT
we need to update the OSFA rules on this. We should not close the bidding of the free agents until the top 5 on every position has signed on a team or unless he got more than 10 offers. 10 is probably a little high, as a minimum. But I kind of agree with the general sentiment. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 28, 2016 19:05:12 GMT
Ian Noble - Probably a good thread to read when you have a few minutes / half hour.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 27, 2024 14:25:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 19:06:19 GMT
we need to update the OSFA rules on this. We should not close the bidding of the free agents until the top 5 on every position has signed on a team or unless he got more than 10 offers. 10 is probably a little high, as a minimum. But I kind of agree with the general sentiment. We have this system in 720, it's called "tiered free agency" The ratings are for a different sim engine. It works really well though because the player agents can just focus on the top 3-4 free agents at their position for the first week (which most do anyway), but it won't flood their PM box. It's just helpful to both GMs and player agents to break up the free agency pool by rating. It makes it more realistic (the best players always sign first anyway), and much simpler. I don't care what system we use (I'm not a PA), but maybe the PAs might prefer something like this. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jul 28, 2016 20:00:31 GMT
we need to update the OSFA rules on this. We should not close the bidding of the free agents until the top 5 on every position has signed on a team or unless he got more than 10 offers. 10 is probably a little high, as a minimum. But I kind of agree with the general sentiment. I disagree. Free agency decisions should be dictated by the actions of all the GMs. It's not our job to solicit offers from other teams if a suitable one is on the table. If you're lazy and don't care about the players and put in little effort on the few offers you do make, then tough luck for you. If you're really proactive and pursue a player nobody else gives a shit about (unless maybe they miss out on option A, B and C) then you should be rewarded for that. Anybody that's only making one offer at a time is doing a poor job in free agency. You should be sending out offers immediately to everyone you are even slightly interested in signing. It's perfectly fine to have priorities and prefer the bigger name players, but you have to show that interest to the other guys too. If you don't then you're just giving off the impression that this particular player is only an afterthought to you. The impression I got after 5 days of free agency, is that Brandon Knight is just an afterthought to everyone but the Pelicans. Add in the fact that they're his bird rights team, and that they offered $23 million more than he got from the Suns last summer, and again, that's a very easy decision. Also for some of the people who seem to still be under the impression that this decision was made recently, it wasn't. This was decided when Knight's name was greyed out on July 6th or whatever day it was. Long before Burks or Roberson or whatever other moves have happened. It's sat unannounced since then because that was the policy regarding bird rights players with contracts bigger than their cap hold. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 28, 2016 20:28:42 GMT
10 is probably a little high, as a minimum. But I kind of agree with the general sentiment. We have this system in 720, it's called "tiered free agency" The ratings are for a different sim engine. It works really well though because the player agents can just focus on the top 3-4 free agents at their position for the first week (which most do anyway), but it won't flood their PM box. It's just helpful to both GMs and player agents to break up the free agency pool by rating. It makes it more realistic (the best players always sign first anyway), and much simpler. I don't care what system we use (I'm not a PA), but maybe the PAs might prefer something like this. Something like this feels pretty good. For our ratings it's probably equivalent to something like 85+, then 70-84, then below 70. Just to say it. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 28, 2016 20:33:39 GMT
10 is probably a little high, as a minimum. But I kind of agree with the general sentiment. The impression I got after 5 days of free agency, is that Brandon Knight is just an afterthought to everyone but the Pelicans. Add in the fact that they're his bird rights team, and that they offered $23 million more than he got from the Suns last summer, and again, that's a very easy decision. You've seen quite a few people in this thread say they would have bid on him. So, your impression seems to be at least somewhat inaccurate. If people say they're willing to offer the max to him, then your impression seems even more inaccurate. The way you work your FA doesn't have to be the way everyone else does. And again, as his PA you should be looking for the absolute best deal for him. You thought you had it, based on what you're saying. I'm just saying, ideally a player's agent thinks that player is amazing and will fight for him so he gets the most money he can (which, IRL, the Agent also makes more money this way). I know we don't get that benefit, but it would be nice to hear that Agents are always trying to get as much money as possible, even if that is only used as a tool to separate the more interested parties. Again, I think we all do our job differently, but some more guidance might be good for the league as a whole, if everyone knows how things work. Because it's apparently not everyone bids on every single player they're interested in immediately. I like "Billy's" idea to stagger FA at least somewhat. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jul 28, 2016 20:36:43 GMT
We have this system in 720, it's called "tiered free agency" The ratings are for a different sim engine. It works really well though because the player agents can just focus on the top 3-4 free agents at their position for the first week (which most do anyway), but it won't flood their PM box. It's just helpful to both GMs and player agents to break up the free agency pool by rating. It makes it more realistic (the best players always sign first anyway), and much simpler. I don't care what system we use (I'm not a PA), but maybe the PAs might prefer something like this. I don't like this idea. First off, it's not true the bigger name players always sign first. Here are some of the players who signed this year before Kevin Durant: Timofey Mozgov, DJ Augustin, Ish Smith, Solomon Hill, Darrell Arthur, ETwaun Moore, Kent Bazemore, Jon Leuer, Trevor Booker, James Ennis and Matt Barnes. Those are just some of the shitty players too. More than 50 people signed before KD. Why didn't Evan Fournier or Arron Afflalo or Jeff Green or DeMar DeRozan wait to see what happened with Durant before signing? It could have really opened up their options after he goes off the board right? But they had an offer they liked on the table, so they signed it. Free agency is already way too formulaic. Not enough random shit happens and for the most part it's very predictable. So predictable that James Kay traded away Andrew fucking Wiggins because he was so confident he could get Kawhi Leonard. When instead he signed with the Bulls, another great option, even that tiny little bit of unpredictability was a big scandal for some people. I know that's simplifying all the bullshit that the Kawhi signing resulted in, but had Kawhi signed with Charlotte, that resulting bullshit would probably have been a fraction of the size it was. It kills free agency when everyone knows you have to be in that optimal up and coming position if you want to make a big splash on the FA market. There is a reason half the league is tanking. It's because we have a handful of contenders, a handful of hopefuls who might get lucky in free agency, then a long list of everyone else that knows they're shit out of luck. A free agency this rigid is a bad idea in my opinion. We might as well just all have a huddle, decide Lebron's best option is Golden State, then offer him to Chris Mullin. If he says no, move on to the #2 team on the list, or the #3 team, and so on. Repeat that process ad nauseum with every player until free agency is effectively just a draft where the best free agent destination have all the lottery picks. I've made rants like this in the past, but I'll say it again. Half the shit that actually happens in the NBA would result in endless arguing and scandals if it happened here. Everybody wants to remove any unpredictability in the system and the result is just a boring, lowest common denominator type of decision making process that hurts a lot of the creativity or unique outcomes that can and do happen in the NBA. Most of all though, I can't believe we're all having this argument once again, and it's because of Brandon Knight. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on Jul 28, 2016 20:51:04 GMT
You've seen quite a few people in this thread say they would have bid on him. So, your impression seems to be at least somewhat inaccurate. If people say they're willing to offer the max to him, then your impression seems even more inaccurate. The way you work your FA doesn't have to be the way everyone else does. And again, as his PA you should be looking for the absolute best deal for him. You thought you had it, based on what you're saying. I'm just saying, ideally a player's agent thinks that player is amazing and will fight for him so he gets the most money he can (which, IRL, the Agent also makes more money this way). I know we don't get that benefit, but it would be nice to hear that Agents are always trying to get as much money as possible, even if that is only used as a tool to separate the more interested parties. Again, I think we all do our job differently, but some more guidance might be good for the league as a whole, if everyone knows how things work. Because it's apparently not everyone bids on every single player they're interested in immediately. I like "Billy's" idea to stagger FA at least somewhat. Right, but I'm not psychic, and I feel no duty to any other team to try and root out those "better" offers. It's on them to tell me they have an interest in a player. I'll give you an example of what I mean because I think you already know. Let's talk about Alec Burks. Burks was a lower priority for the Pelicans who wanted Gallinari right? But he sent a PM to you indicating his interest. While that was in play, you had a great offer from Brooklyn of like $11 million per season. You didn't sign him to the Nets because of the possibility of that $15 mil per season offer from New Orleans. All of that is perfectly great. But what if Brian hadn't sent you that PM for Burks? You would have just gone ahead and signed him to the Nets right? A good offer for $40+ million over 4 years. But then after that deal is posted Brian comes in and says 'What the hell? This is such a huge discount, I would have offered Burks $15 mil per season. Why didn't you keep him on the market?' Even though you didn't end up getting the best offer for Burks, I believe the proper response would be something like 'Tough luck, get your offers in earlier otherwise I have no idea you're interested in Alec Burks.' That's pretty much my point here with Knight. That PM from New Orleans kept Burks on the market. None of that happened with Knight, so he signed. Also if you'd like to waste some more of your day, you can read my essay on why I don't like Billy's FA idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 28, 2016 21:02:31 GMT
We have this system in 720, it's called "tiered free agency" The ratings are for a different sim engine. It works really well though because the player agents can just focus on the top 3-4 free agents at their position for the first week (which most do anyway), but it won't flood their PM box. It's just helpful to both GMs and player agents to break up the free agency pool by rating. It makes it more realistic (the best players always sign first anyway), and much simpler. I don't care what system we use (I'm not a PA), but maybe the PAs might prefer something like this. I don't like this idea. First off, it's not true the bigger name players always sign first. Here are some of the players who signed this year before Kevin Durant: Timofey Mozgov, DJ Augustin, Ish Smith, Solomon Hill, Darrell Arthur, ETwaun Moore, Kent Bazemore, Jon Leuer, Trevor Booker, James Ennis and Matt Barnes. Those are just some of the shitty players too. More than 50 people signed before KD. Why didn't Evan Fournier or Arron Afflalo or Jeff Green or DeMar DeRozan wait to see what happened with Durant before signing? It could have really opened up their options after he goes off the board right? But they had an offer they liked on the table, so they signed it. Free agency is already way too formulaic. Not enough random shit happens and for the most part it's very predictable. So predictable that James Kay traded away Andrew fucking Wiggins because he was so confident he could get Kawhi Leonard. When instead he signed with the Bulls, another great option, even that tiny little bit of unpredictability was a big scandal for some people. I know that's simplifying all the bullshit that the Kawhi signing resulted in, but had Kawhi signed with Charlotte, that resulting bullshit would probably have been a fraction of the size it was. It kills free agency when everyone knows you have to be in that optimal up and coming position if you want to make a big splash on the FA market. There is a reason half the league is tanking. It's because we have a handful of contenders, a handful of hopefuls who might get lucky in free agency, then a long list of everyone else that knows they're shit out of luck. A free agency this rigid is a bad idea in my opinion. We might as well just all have a huddle, decide Lebron's best option is Golden State, then offer him to Chris Mullin. If he says no, move on to the #2 team on the list, or the #3 team, and so on. Repeat that process ad nauseum with every player until free agency is effectively just a draft where the best free agent destination have all the lottery picks. I've made rants like this in the past, but I'll say it again. Half the shit that actually happens in the NBA would result in endless arguing and scandals if it happened here. Everybody wants to remove any unpredictability in the system and the result is just a boring, lowest common denominator type of decision making process that hurts a lot of the creativity or unique outcomes that can and do happen in the NBA. Most of all though, I can't believe we're all having this argument once again, and it's because of Brandon Knight. I think this idea could result in more offers for the top players actually. If you're only able to offer the top few players at each position, more people might say, Hey what the heck, may as well go for it while I can! |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 28, 2016 21:10:09 GMT
You've seen quite a few people in this thread say they would have bid on him. So, your impression seems to be at least somewhat inaccurate. If people say they're willing to offer the max to him, then your impression seems even more inaccurate. The way you work your FA doesn't have to be the way everyone else does. And again, as his PA you should be looking for the absolute best deal for him. You thought you had it, based on what you're saying. I'm just saying, ideally a player's agent thinks that player is amazing and will fight for him so he gets the most money he can (which, IRL, the Agent also makes more money this way). I know we don't get that benefit, but it would be nice to hear that Agents are always trying to get as much money as possible, even if that is only used as a tool to separate the more interested parties. Again, I think we all do our job differently, but some more guidance might be good for the league as a whole, if everyone knows how things work. Because it's apparently not everyone bids on every single player they're interested in immediately. I like "Billy's" idea to stagger FA at least somewhat. Right, but I'm not psychic, and I feel no duty to any other team to try and root out those "better" offers. It's on them to tell me they have an interest in a player. I'll give you an example of what I mean because I think you already know. Let's talk about Alec Burks. Burks was a lower priority for the Pelicans who wanted Gallinari right? But he sent a PM to you indicating his interest. While that was in play, you had a great offer from Brooklyn of like $11 million per season. You didn't sign him to the Nets because of the possibility of that $15 mil per season offer from New Orleans. All of that is perfectly great. But what if Brian hadn't sent you that PM for Burks? You would have just gone ahead and signed him to the Nets right? A good offer for $40+ million over 4 years. But then after that deal is posted Brian comes in and says 'What the hell? This is such a huge discount, I would have offered Burks $15 mil per season. Why didn't you keep him on the market?' Even though you didn't end up getting the best offer for Burks, I believe the proper response would be something like 'Tough luck, get your offers in earlier otherwise I have no idea you're interested in Alec Burks.' That's pretty much my point here with Knight. That PM from New Orleans kept Burks on the market. None of that happened with Knight, so he signed. Also if you'd like to waste some more of your day, you can read my essay on why I don't like Billy's FA idea. LOL, I read it thanks. You're partially right. I may have signed him to the Nets. But I was ready to seek out better offers to be honest. I let Julius Irving know he should make an offer. I would have looked around for better deals, but Barber was decreasing his offer by the hour for a little bit there so I was trying to prove I could find more money for him :-p I do get your point, but I personally have had more luck waiting for better offers rather than assuming no one else wanted an 80+rated young player. There's usually a market for someone like Knight. It just takes time to develop in my experience. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jul 28, 2016 23:04:58 GMT
I like @riogho's idea and had planned for something similar this year but didn't put it into practice. The few big name FAs require more attention than the hundred other players available. I actually think it might be good to just assign each PA one big-name player each at the start of OSFA so nobody gets overburdened, I think that's a huge factor. I had KD and Butler only this year but it was exhausting on top of all the admin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on Jul 28, 2016 23:11:10 GMT
It would be absolutely awesome to have lots of unpredictability in OSFA and players going all over the place to different teams, that would be hugely interesting, and more realistic maybe.
However (!) D5 is a game, there's not many games where 3 years of dedication can mean you lose (ie. Kawhi leaving Phoenix)! Generally every big name signing that leaves their team is as a result of extreme circumstances (Majerle making no effort, Chuck's mathematically impossible off season last year leading to Bledsoe leaving, JR talking about how he didn't want Timmy to re-sign in 2012).
I'm starting to think striking a realistic balance is impossible!
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jul 28, 2016 23:30:53 GMT
we need to update the OSFA rules on this. We should not close the bidding of the free agents until the top 5 on every position has signed on a team or unless he got more than 10 offers. 10 is probably a little high, as a minimum. But I kind of agree with the general sentiment. I think, we should also add a rule that states the maximum number of days where a lone offer will finally win the FA that he offered to. Maybe 5? |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jul 28, 2016 23:41:38 GMT
It would be absolutely awesome to have lots of unpredictability in OSFA and players going all over the place to different teams, that would be hugely interesting, and more realistic maybe. However (!) D5 is a game, there's not many games where 3 years of dedication can mean you lose (ie. Kawhi leaving Phoenix)! Generally every big name signing that leaves their team is as a result of extreme circumstances (Majerle making no effort, Chuck's mathematically impossible off season last year leading to Bledsoe leaving, JR talking about how he didn't want Timmy to re-sign in 2012). I'm starting to think striking a realistic balance is impossible! Here is another idea. We can also try to lessen the burden of the PAs by adding at least two more PAs to tackle the low-rated once. Around 75 and less? That way, lesser effort will be asked from the 5 PAs, which I believe will result on better decisions. One more positive about this is we separated the back-ups/role players from the starting caliber players. The PAs will have a more consistent line of thoughts than when they handle everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 28, 2016 23:53:53 GMT
It would be absolutely awesome to have lots of unpredictability in OSFA and players going all over the place to different teams, that would be hugely interesting, and more realistic maybe. However (!) D5 is a game, there's not many games where 3 years of dedication can mean you lose (ie. Kawhi leaving Phoenix)! Generally every big name signing that leaves their team is as a result of extreme circumstances (Majerle making no effort, Chuck's mathematically impossible off season last year leading to Bledsoe leaving, JR talking about how he didn't want Timmy to re-sign in 2012). I'm starting to think striking a realistic balance is impossible! Here is another idea. We can also try to lessen the burden of the PAs by adding at least two more PAs to tackle the low-rated once. Around 75 and less? That way, lesser effort will be asked from the 5 PAs, which I believe will result on better decisions. One more positive about this is we separated the back-ups/role players from the starting caliber players. The PAs will have a more consistent line of thoughts than when they handle everything. Personally haven't had to use much thought on my guys 75 or under. Pondexter had a weird amount of activity but other than him this idea wouldn't have helped me at all this year. I think the tiered FA will basically fix this though, even if it is a slight problem. Which I don't think it is much. |
|
|
|
Post by Walt Frazier on Jul 28, 2016 23:55:09 GMT
10 is probably a little high, as a minimum. But I kind of agree with the general sentiment. I think, we should also add a rule that states the maximum number of days where a lone offer will finally win the FA that he offered to. Maybe 5? Your idea goes completely against the idea that Troy had. He's saying never close unless you have lots of votes or after the players better than him are already finished. It sounded like you were agreeing and adding to the idea but it's actually completely against the idea? I'm confused. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jul 29, 2016 1:56:30 GMT
I think, we should also add a rule that states the maximum number of days where a lone offer will finally win the FA that he offered to. Maybe 5? Your idea goes completely against the idea that Troy had. He's saying never close unless you have lots of votes or after the players better than him are already finished. It sounded like you were agreeing and adding to the idea but it's actually completely against the idea? I'm confused. Yeah. I am confused too. But the two ideas can be combined. My idea is basically the super minimum. I mean "'Troy's idea'... unless a lone offer has been standing for 10 days." |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on Jul 29, 2016 1:57:45 GMT
Here is another idea. We can also try to lessen the burden of the PAs by adding at least two more PAs to tackle the low-rated once. Around 75 and less? That way, lesser effort will be asked from the 5 PAs, which I believe will result on better decisions. One more positive about this is we separated the back-ups/role players from the starting caliber players. The PAs will have a more consistent line of thoughts than when they handle everything. Personally haven't had to use much thought on my guys 75 or under. Pondexter had a weird amount of activity but other than him this idea wouldn't have helped me at all this year. I think the tiered FA will basically fix this though, even if it is a slight problem. Which I don't think it is much. then we can put the threshold higher, how about 77 and less? |
|
Minnesota Timberwolves
Brooklyn Nets
Miami Heat
Denver Nuggets
Boston Celtics
Cleveland Cavaliers
